a newer version of the 3x lens to match the XL2?

[Jeff Donald]

Isn't it the other way around, Nick? You buy the camera that will make you the most money or be more efficient and in the off time you shoot your (bad) features. Everyone likes to think of themselves as being indie producers. But the reality for most people is, events, training tapes, TV commercials etc are what pays the bills and puts bread on the table.

[Nick Hiltgen]

Jeff well sure it's like that for most people, But in my case I make so much money shooting Indie's that I just consider that as the main source of income... then I wake up.

Jeff's right, take my previous post and reverse it, though I believe the principle idea is the same. I also believe that there are a few people out there who buy cameras with the idea they're going to make movies but in the end they move on towards whatever will pay them.

Either way i think that canon should make a manual wide lens.

[Nick Hiltgen]

Jeff well sure it's like that for most people, But in my case I make so much money shooting Indie's that I just consider that as the main source of income... then I wake up.

Jeff's right, take my previous post and reverse it, though I believe the principle idea is the same. I also believe that there are a few people out there who buy cameras with the idea they're going to make movies but in the end they move on towards whatever will pay them.

[Jeff Donald]

Or they sell the cameras in our classifieds

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Jeff/Nik/John:

While your observations are correct I see them as not relevant to this thread or to the discussion about marketing.

First, in most cases for most products, marketing people care least about what people do after they bought a camera. What's most important is what they think right before and when the moment they buy a camera.

It's clear from the success of DVX100a and the current marketing campaigns that "indie filmmaking" is all the marketing rage - who cares how many people shoot indies, make money at the or turn around and sell the camera on eBay. A sale is a sale.

Second, Canon with XL2 to me made a marketing mistake. The decided to make a camera aimed at too many market without a willingness to break from the past (see their cam history).

It's clearly best aimed at current XL1/s owners. It's questionablely aimed at DVX100a wanters (big price, lack of compelling lens choices i.e. this thread).

It's also questionably aimed at event/eng/corporate gov/ folks without XL1 system investments. The price is high enough we start to think about 1/2" cameras lack of excellent 4:3 performance vs. good native 16:9 may turn out to be a signifigant issue. Many of those folks still want good 4:3 60i images.

I don't think I'm an strange anachronism. I bought a XL1 & assorted lenses in 1999, sold it to buy a DVX100 which I lost in.

Last month, I really needed to buy a camera & despite a Canon brand preference, I bought a DVX100a instead. I don't expect to be stunned by the difference in 16:9 off the XL2 vs. 16:9 squeeze in the DVX100a. I'm still reeling a little for what a XL2 with 3X and Manual Lens would set me back.

[Nick Hiltgen]

<<Or they sell the cameras in our classified>>

::ahem:: I uh don't know who would do something like that... ::Ahen::

Stephen I repectfully disagree with you I think that our conversation was directly on topic and relevent.

I think the marketing strategy was like this, you don't typically market to say the ENG/Corperate/GOV market because people purchasing for those particular groups will tend to be on the more "professional" purchasing side. If someone makes there money shooting documentaries, commercials, corperate videos, and that's what the plan on doing I think they will do ALOT of research before they buy (if they buy instead of rent) and then they will come to the best decision they can, and to be honest marketing won't make too much difference to them. On the other hand (please no indie film makers take offense to this) Often times the Indy folks will something in a magazine and not particularly care what the specs are and are more impressed by the pictures or whatever. As a result it becomes sort of a (really expensive) impulse buy where marketing plays in heavily.

I think the camera is in fact defintely geared towards previous XL1 owners and I think that might make canon a lot of money, I think that the dvx100a is still an excellent camera and will remain one of the top cameras in the market, I don't think that the xl2 is a dvx killer by any "stretch" (get it stretch... ok bad joke)

I also sold my XL1 mostly because I had a job that would supply me with equipment and I wasn't using it anymore, I am reluctant to like the populatr camera's but I think that the DVX100 is a good one, I also think that the xl2 is a good one, I still have my 14x lens so I'll probably end up going withthe xl2 as my next camera I'm also partial to the body style of the camera which I assure everyone is NOT front heavy when you have a Anton Bauer pack and wirless receiver mounted to the back. and is definitely not too bad when you have it on a set of sticks.

I think the original intent of this thread was there should be a new wide lens, and I think there should be I wasn't crazy about my wide lens (it seemed soft even on close ups) and I would really like a manual one, I'd really like a b4 mount so I could toss up professional lenses but I don't think that's going to happen soon.

[Jeff Donald]

What most people (at least the prudent ones) are thinking right before they buy the camera is how are they going to pay for it. Purchasers may have fleeting thoughts of making the next great indie film and being discovered by a big studio, but reality (or their spouses voice) soon snaps them back to the present. People buy these prosumer cameras with the hopes of making a buck or two and paying their Visa bill. So, if fleeting thoughts of "indie" stardom count as a sale in the "indie market" then you may well be right. The indie market is huge and probably accounts for over 90% of XL series sales. However, if the market is defined by what the cameras are primarily used for, then I stand by my assertion that there are at least several markets larger than independent film makers.

[Aaron Koolen]

Being relatively inexperienced though, do ENG/Seminar etc people give a damn about chip size? The few I have talked to have. I mean one guy was saying there were some concerns about his camera being suitable for a job cause his cam was only 1/2" and not a 2/3rder.

If this is the case (Not saying it is) then 1/3" won't cut it ever and definately 1/4" won't which is what the Xl2 is in 4:3. I know it's not just the size, and that it's what the size generally gives sensitivity, DoF etc, but it boils down to that.

And re the WA, I would have thought, regardless if whether you're an indy filmmaker or ENG person, at some stage you'll be shooting inside a room and want a wide angle. So let's hope they do bring out some new lenses.


Aaron

[Dan Euritt]

in the real world, working video stiffs buy cameras that get used a lot... by comparison, how many films do indie filmmakers actually shoot? renting higher-quality gear than the xl2 is the answer for them; there is little economic sense in buying a camera that only gets used a few months out of the year.

i personally don't know any indie filmmakers who are actually making a living shooting indie films with canon-level video cameras... but i know quite a few full and part -time videographers.

it would be interesting to see a dvinfo.net member poll that measured the count of videographers vs. indie filmmakers... and people who do both with their canon gear.

[Yi Fong Yu]

i just started a thread about that poll. i won't post my own answer til i get replies... so go get 'em!

[John Mercer]

Hi Stephen,

"I don't expect to be stunned by the difference in 16:9 off the XL2 vs. 16:9 squeeze in the DVX100a. I'm still reeling a little for what a XL2 with 3X and Manual Lens would set me back."

Well from what I've seen of the PAL tests so far I would think the XL2 16:9 quality should be appreciably better than the 16:9 squeeze mode on the DVX100a; the DVX100a with the anamorphic adaptor should be comparable but there are some limitations with it - not least of which for me it's a fixed arrangement.

With respect Stephen you seem to be hammering this point about marketing. The 'indie' is not the greates users sector of DV camcorders by a long chalk. Broadcast, corporate and wedding etc. usage far outweighs indies in the market.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say: You bought a DVX100a because it was cheaper than the XL2, very good quality and is around now; great but that doesn't mean the XL2 isn't going to sell well. Just becuse the XL2 is a lot more than the DVX100 does not mean it is priced out of the market - it has a things that the DVX100 does not, like interchangeable lenses and true 16:9, and as I say it is not expensive when you consider that it is impossible to get any similar featured camera at anywhere near this price - it's a slightly different market.

It might have a different kind of buyer but it is not priced out of the market - $4999 is list price in any case - wait 12 months and then fairly judge the more realistic prices against others. For the feature set I think it a very good price.

Best regards,
John

[Nick Hiltgen]

Jeff perhaps I misstated what I was trying to say, I completely agree with your sentiment, however myself being one of the less "prudent" ones I don't know how much my opinion counts.

[Chris Hurd]

Everybody's opinion counts at DV Info Net.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Any news on a new 3X wide angle from Canon to complement the 16x manual would be most welcome. I'm planning to buy both the Canon 16x manual zoom and the Canon 3X wide lens immediately upon purchasing the XL2 body. I may decide on not getting the 20X L IS lens at all, unless the body-less-standard-lens price is only minimally discounted. I'll then be selling my non-'A' DVX100 package.

[Rob Lohman]

There has no word yet from Canon if there will by *ANY* new
lenses at all, let alone something specific as the 3x. A lot of
people seem to WANT a new one (I say test it first) but there
might not ever be coming a new one! Don't take all this talk
about something that people want as a product actually getting
on the market!